Darrel,
Yes, we have. Sadly, I don't recall every having seen a satisfactory answer on
the mailing list. Can you point me to one?
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darrel Lewis (darlewis) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:29 PM
> To: Ronald Bonica
> Cc: Darrel Lewis (darlewis); [email protected]; LISP mailing list list
> Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 2)
>
> Ron,
>
> It strikes me that we've had discussions on what an EID is many, many times
> before on this list. Perhaps looking at those archived conversations would be
> useful.
>
> -Darrel
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2014, at 7:38 AM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Albert,
> >
> > Your definition misses one small but important point. The degree to which
> an EID carries topological information depends largely upon the observer's
> location.
> >
> > For example, assume that a LISP site is served by two XTRs and both XTRs
> go down. Nodes within the site can still communicate with one another, even
> though no device that is operating has a LOCATOR. In this case, where does
> topological information come from?
> >
> > Also, when an EID is advertised into the global Internet by a PITR, does it
> continue to be an EID? If so, does it continue to be devoid of location
> semantics?
> >
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Albert Cabellos [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 11:49 AM
> >> To: Ronald Bonica
> >> Cc: LISP mailing list list
> >> Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 2)
> >>
> >> Hi Ron
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Folks,
> >>>
> >>> The following text is lifted from Section 6.1. At best, it is difficult
> >>> to parse.
> >> At worst, it is incorrect. Is there a better way to distinguish
> >> between an IED and a LOC?
> >>>
> >>
> >> What about stating that RLOCs are topologically assigned to network
> >> attachment points while EIDs are independent of the topology and used
> >> to identify devices.
> >>
> >> Albert
> >>
> >>> Rn
> >>>
> >>> "The second key concept is that if one wants to be as
> >>> forward-looking as
> >> possible, conceptually one should think of the two kinds of names
> >> (EIDs and
> >> RLOCs) as naming different classes of entities.
> >>>
> >>> On the one hand, EIDs are used to name nodes - or rather, their end-
> >>> end
> >> communication entities. RLOC(s), on the other hand, name interfaces, i.e.
> >> places to which the system of routers sends packets.
> >>>
> >>> This distinction, the formal recognition of different kinds of
> >>> entities
> >> ("endpoints" and interfaces), and their association with the two
> >> different classes of names, is also important. Clearly recognizing
> >> interfaces and endpoints as distinctly separate classes of objects is
> >> another improvement to the existing Internet" architecture."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> lisp mailing list
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> > _______________________________________________
> > lisp mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
